STREET. A public thoroughfare or high way in a city or village. It differs from a country highway ; In re Road from Fitzwa ter St., 4 S. & R. (Pa.) 106. It means the whole surface and so much of the depth as is or can be used, not unfairly, for the or dinary purposes of a street. L. R. 4 Q. B. D. 121. A street is not an easement, but a dedication to the public of the occupation of the surface for passing and repassing ; L. R. 3 Ch. 306; 1 Q. B. D. 703. See HIGH WAY.
A practical rule as to vehicles and pedes trians is that the rights of the latter are pri mary at crossings and secondary between crossings. This rule has been applied by Judge Sulzberger both in civil and criminal cases in the Philadelphia Common Pleas.
A street, besides its use as a highway for travel, may be used for the accommodation of drains, sewers, aqueducts, water, and gas pipes, lines of telegraph, and for other pur poses conducive to the general police, sani tary, and business interests of a city ; Mil hau v. Sharp, 17 Barb. (N. Y.) 435; Provi dence Gas Co. v. Thurber, 2 R. 1. 15, 55 Am. Dec. 621; Cummins v. Seymour, 79 Ind. 491, 41 Am. Rep. 618. Its use belongs, from side to side and end to end, to the public ; State v. Berdetta, 73 Ind. 193, 38 Am. Rep. 117. Unless there be some special restric tions when the same are acquired, streets and squares are for the public use at large as distinguished from the municipality ; 2 Dillon, Mun. Cor. 656.
To enable a city lawfully to permit the use of its streets for poles, wires, etc., for telephone purposes, the power to do so must be expressly delegated to it ; State v. Trenton, 36 N. J. L. 79 ; Texarkana v. Tel. Co., 48 Tex. Civ, App. 16, 106 S. W. 915 ; Logansport R. Co. v. Logansport, 114 Fed. 688; Birming ham & P. M. St. R. Co. v. R. Co., 79 Ala. 465, 58 Am. Rep. 615 ; Curry v. Dist. of Columbia, 14 App. D. C. 423 ; Bischof v. Bank, 75 Neb. 838, 106 N. W. 996, 5 L. R. A. (N. S.) 486. It was held not within the power of a mu nicipal corporation to grant any exclusive privilege in its streets to any corporation so as to deprive itself of the right to revoke the same and grant like privileges to another ; Montgomery L. & W. P. Co. v. Power Co., 142 Ala. 464, 38 South. 1026. It is held that a municipal corporation cannot, without legis lative authority, grant a franchise to lay gas pipes in its streets ; Elizabeth City v. Banks, 150 N. C. 407, 64 S. E. 189, 22 L. R. A. (N. S.)
J25; East Tennessee Tel. Co. v. Russellville, 106 Ky. 667, 51 S. W. 308; Russell v. R. Co., 205 Ill. 155, 68 N. E. 727; Morristown, Tenn., v. Tel. Co., 115 Fed. 304, 53 C. C. A. 132 ; nor can it grant the exclusive privilege of the use of streets for mains, pipes and hydrants for water works ; Syracuse Water Co. v. Syracuse, 116 N. Y. 167, 22 N. E. 381, 5 L. R. A. 516 ; Illinois T. & S. Bk. v. Arkan sas City, 76 Fed. 271, 22 C. C. A. 171, 34 L. R. A. 518; Washington v. Monroe, 40 Wash. .545, 82 Pac. 888; nor sell a street or park ; r Turner v. Com'rs, 127 N. C. 153, 37 S. E. 191.
The charter of a city, giving to a city su pervision and control of all public highways and public grounds, does not authorize an ordinance for the leasing of space on the streets or sidewalks in front of business houses for use by produce dealers or other merchants ; such use of the streets will con stitute a nuisance ; Chapman v. Lincoln, 84 Neb. 534, 121 N. W. 596, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400.
A street may be used by individuals for the lading and unlading of carriages, for the tem porary deposit of movables or of materials and scaffoldings for building or repairing, provided such use shall not unreasonably abridge or incommode its primary use for travel ; 3 Camp. 230 ; 4 Ad. & E. 405; Com. v. Passmore, 1 S. & R. (Pa.) 219 ; Callanan v. Gilman, 107 N. Y. 360, 14 N. E. 264, 1 Am. St. Rep. 831; Sikes v. Manchester, 59 Ia. 65, 12 N. W. 755; Mathews v. Kelsey; 58 Me. 56, 4 Am. Rep. 248.
A municipal corporation cannot make an ordinance for the lease to produce dealers of space on a sidewalk ; Chapman v. Lincoln, 84 Neb. 534, 121 N. W. 596, 25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 400 ; and cannot erect or authorize market buildings ; Curry v. Dist. of Columbia, 14 App. D. C. 423 ; Costello v. State, 108 Ala. 45, 18 South. 820, 35 L. R. A. 303 ; or a market pound or jail ; Lutterloh v. Cedar Keys, 15 Fla. 306; cannot authorize hucksters stands; Schopp v. St. Louis, 117 Mo. 131, 22 S. W. 898, 20 L. R. A. 783 ; licensed vendors ; In re Fiegle, 36 Misc. Rep. 27, 72 N. Y. Supp. 438 ; except when the -rights of the public at large or of abutting property owners are not materially interrupted ; Londonderry Tp. v. Berger, 2 Pears. (Pa.) 230. But it has been held that a municipality may authorize the use of streets for market purposes ; Henkel v. Detroit, 49 Mich. 249, 13 N. W. 611, 43 Am. Rep. 464.